list_tasksLists recent tasks newest first with their status, and filters by status to show work waiting for approval (Draft) or finished (Done).
Lists the most recent tasks, newest first, with their status. Filter by status to see, for example, what is waiting for approval (Draft) or what is finished (Done).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many tasks to return. | |
| status | No | Only tasks with this status. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the newest-first ordering, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about the default result count or pagination beyond the schema's limit parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the sorting behavior front-loaded and the filter guidance second; no filler and no repetition of the tool name or schema fields verbatim.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers scope, ordering, and filtering adequately. Return-shape details are only lightly touched ('with their status'), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by interpreting enum values in workflow terms (Draft = awaiting approval, Done = finished). The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (tasks) plus ordering (newest first) and the included field (status). It is clearly distinct from get_task (single task), create_task, and cancel_task, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives concrete usage context by mapping status filters to real scenarios ('what is waiting for approval (Draft)', 'what is finished (Done)'), so an agent knows when to reach for the status parameter. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or pointing to list_agents/get_task as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.